Showing posts with label congress. Show all posts
Showing posts with label congress. Show all posts

Friday, September 27, 2013

Obama Jokes about GOP View of Obamacare

 photo GOP-Mt-Flushmore.jpg

The President spoke in Maryland yesterday about the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) about to kick in for millions of Americans. He also had a few laughs at the expense of the GOP loonies who keep trying to repeal or stop Obamacare, even if they have to shut down the government.

 Just this week, we had Senator Ted Cruz R-Texas attempting a Filibuster (or Fauxlibuster or Sillybuster) to somehow stop the process of implementing Obamacare, with help from Sen. Mike Lee of Utah. Members of their own party from John McCain to Senator Bob Corker R-TN have stepped in to tell him off for his idiotic stance that has divided the Republican Party. Huffington Post reporter Ryan Grim also reported that Cruz himself doesn't need the Senate Health Care plan because - guess what? - he is covered by his wife's elegant-gold-plated health care plan from her employer Goldman Sachs. Sorry Ted Cruz - you fail at all the things, you big phoney hypocrite!

Quotes and Tweets on SnarkAmendment:
Smackdown: Sen. Bob Corker Vs. Ted Cruz on Obamacare
Line forms to criticize Ted Cruz after Filibuster Attempt
Talkative Ted Cruz fumbles to Fauxlibuster Finish Line
Green Eggs and Sham ~ The Ted Cruz Fauxlibuster Continues
Ted Cruz Attempts to Filibuster Obamacare

The Tea Party members quoted by the President include Rep. Michele Bachmann R-Minn. for saying Obamacare will "literally kill people" ; Rep. Bill O'Brien R-NH who compared ACA to the Fugitive Slave Act ; and Rep. John Fleming R-LA for the hyperbolic statement that Obamacare is the biggest threat to our country EVER, in history, EVER!

Transcript at WhiteHouse.Gov

THE PRESIDENT: It is interesting, though, how over the last couple years, the Republican Party has just spun itself up around this issue. And the fact is the Republicans’ biggest fear at this point is not that the Affordable Care Act will fail. What they’re worried about is it’s going to succeed. (Applause.) I mean, think about it. If it was as bad as they said it was going to be, then they could just go ahead and let it happen and then everybody would hate it so much, and then everybody would vote to repeal it, and that would be the end of it.

So what is it that they’re so scared about?

AUDIENCE MEMBER: You! (Laughter and applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: They have made such a big political issue out of this, trying to scare everybody with lies about “death panels” and “killing granny” -- (laughter) -- right? “Armageddon.” So if it actually works, they’ll look pretty bad. If it actually works, that will mean that everything they were saying really wasn’t true and they were just playing politics.

AUDIENCE: That's right!






THE PRESIDENT: Just the other day, one Republican in Congress said we need to shut this thing down before the marketplaces open and people get to see that they’ll be getting coverage and getting these subsidies because -- and I’m going to quote him here -- he said, “It’s going to prove almost impossible to undo Obamacare.” (Laughter.) Right? So in other words, we’ve got to shut this thing down before people find out that they like it. (Laughter and applause.) That’s a strange argument. Don’t you think that’s a strange argument?

AUDIENCE: Yes!

THE PRESIDENT: And the closer we get, the more desperate they get. I mean, over the last few weeks the rhetoric has just been cranked up to a place I’ve never seen before. One congressman said that Obamacare is “the most dangerous piece of legislation ever passed.” (Laughter.) Ever. In the history of America, this is the most dangerous piece of legislation. (Laughter.) Creating a marketplace so people can buy group insurance plans -- the most dangerous ever.

You had a state representative somewhere say that it’s “as destructive to personal and individual liberty as the Fugitive Slave Act.”

AUDIENCE: Booo --

THE PRESIDENT: Think about that. Affordable health care is worse than a law that let slave owners get their runaway slaves back.

AUDIENCE: No!

THE PRESIDENT: I mean, these are quotes. I’m not making this stuff up. And here’s one more that I’ve heard -- I like this one -- we have to -- and I’m quoting here -- “We have to repeal this failure before it literally kills women, kills children, kills senior citizens.” Now, I have to say -- that one was from six months ago -- I just want to point out we still have women -- (laughter) -- we still have children, we still have senior citizens. (Applause.)

All this would be funny if it wasn’t so crazy. And a lot of it is just hot air. A lot of it is just politics. I understand that. But now the tea party Republicans have taken it to a whole new level because they’re threatening either to shut down the government, or shut down the entire economy by refusing to let America pay its bills for the first time in history -- unless I agree to gut a law that will help millions of people.

AUDIENCE: Booo --

THE PRESIDENT: Think about this. Shutting down the government just because you don’t like a law that was passed and found constitutional, and because you don’t like the idea of giving people new access to affordable health care -- what kind of idea is that?

 photo GOP-FYI.jpg

Thursday, September 19, 2013

The Stupid Legacy of a Lazy Heartless Congress

 photo republicanfail.jpg

The Tea Party Republicans are hell-bent on shutting down the government again.

President Obama had harsh words for them over trying to limit the Debt Ceiling once again, calling their actions "extortion" of a sitting President.

Via Time
“You have never seen in the history of the United States the debt ceiling or the threat of not raising the debt ceiling being used to extort a president or a — a governing party,” Obama told the Business Roundtable, an association of CEOs.

Obama said his dispute with House Republicans over a budget for the federal government has also entered uncharted territory, with their demand to link a continuing resolution to postponing the unpopular healthcare law.
“What we now have is a ideological fight that’s been mounted in the House of Representatives that says, we’re not going to pass a budget and we will threaten a government shutdown unless we repeal the Affordable Care Act,” Obama said. “We have not seen this in the past, that a budget is contingent on us eliminating a program that was voted on, passed by both chambers of Congress, ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court, is two weeks from being fully implemented and that helps 30 million people finally get health care coverage — we’ve never seen that become the issue around a budget battle.”

 photo debtceiling.png

Congress continues their foolish quest to "Repeal Obamacare." This is a Don Quixote-like quest they say is mandated by the voters who sent them to Washington. Unfortunately, those voters don't realize that A) It's never going to happen because the ACA is the law of the land, and B) Members of their own party in the Senate think closing down the government (again) is moronic and a ridiculous waste of time.

Speaker of the House John Boehner is being squeezed between a bunch of rock-heads and a hard place. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called the Tea Party troublemakers "anarchists."
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) vowed Wednesday to push ahead with a bill to defund Obamacare or shut down the government -- an effort that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) panned as an "absurd" ploy inspired by tea party "anarchists."
With Congress facing a Sept. 30 deadline to figure out how to keep paying for the federal government, Boehner said in a Capitol Hill news conference that defunding President Barack Obama's health care reform was a key part of that effort.
"We're going to continue to do everything we can to repeal the president's failed health care law," Boehner said. "This week, the House will pass the CR [continuing resolution] that locks the sequester savings in and defunds Obamacare."
Many mainstream Republicans have repeatedly slammed such an approach as "stupid," and Boehner himself has tried to avoid linking Obamacare to a potential government shutdown.

Congress already has popularity lower than head lice and traffic jams, so why not prove again how stupid they are by voting against the popular Obamacare plan for the 40th - or is it 41st? - Nope 42nd - time?

These are the folks who wasted the past year screaming "Benghazi!!!!" and raking Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice over hot burning coals. Did they "get" Hillary and ruin her chances for a Presidential run? Of course not - Hillary remains as popular as ever. What about Susan Rice? While the GOP kept her from being Ambassador to the UN, they couldn't stop Obama from appointing her as his National Security Adviser, so the joke was on the Tea Party. I'm sure more than a few rather empty heads exploded.

Next, they investigated the IRS, which was supposedly "ordered" by Obama to target the Tea Party groups on their tax-exempt status, but when the dust settled, it turned out that liberal groups got the exact same questionnaires and letters.

So each "BIG" investigation reached a dead end. Feeling frustrated, the usual suspects took up the rallying cries of the anti-Obama Libertarians against the NSA thanks to Edward Snowden's leaks. While emoprog Lefties also jumped on the bandwagon - causing strange bedfellows such as Alan Grayson and Sarah Palin (!), all the nerds on MSNBC haven't managed to drag centrist Democrats along with them. In fact, the only thing to come out of the Snowdenfest is that both far-Left and far-Right are praising Vladimir Putin and giving him credit for diplomacy in Syria over our own peace-loving, Nobel-winning President. This wasn't good for the Dems who need to stay cohesive in the 2014 elections, but especially not good for the Tea Party who readily admit they would rather be on the side of a known ex-KGB dictator than the first African-American President.

History is going to judge the Tea Party in the context that they themselves won't recognize - that right now things are not on the edge of the economic apocalypse they keep predicting. The Stock Market is higher than ever under the Obama Administration, and the Deficit is shrinking. So Obama really fails at being a scary "Socialist." All the draconian measures the Republicans insist are "necessary" merely slow down the economy, and help no one. Economists are not going to leave that out of future studies and books, so the GOP is killing its own legacy.

And this Congress fails America on basic moral grounds as well. This week there was a horrible shooting at the Navy Yard in Washington D.C. by still another mentally ill man who was able to procure weapons and go onto a military base. In spite of the fact that he was known to "hear voices" and had brushes with gun violence in the past, all the screening and background checks failed. 14 people are dead, including the shooter. Flags are flying at half-mast. But this Congress and the Republican Party in general is unlikely to pass any new gun laws. Yeah, fiddle-dee-dee. What's another mass murder to this Congress?

The one bill they might pass - the Farm Bill - cuts $40 billion from the Food Stamp Program - an outrage that has the Obama Admin threatening to Veto the entire mess (Reuters).

In a statement, the White House said lawmakers should instead cut farm and crop insurance subsidies rather than separate millions of people from "one of our nation's strongest defenses against hunger and poverty."
"These cuts would affect a broad array of Americans who are struggling to make ends meet, including working families with children, senior citizens, veterans, and adults who are still looking for work," the White House said.
It was the second time since June that the White House has threatened to veto large cuts in food stamps, the main federal program against hunger.
With Republicans holding a 33-seat advantage in the House, Democrats need to persuade around 20 Republicans to join them to kill the bill. Conversely, Republicans need a party-line vote to prevail. They did that on July 11 roll call to single out food stamps for cuts.

UPDATE: They did it - the heartless GOP Congress cut the Food Stamp Program:

From Washington Post:
Late Thursday, the House of Representatives voted, 217-210, to cut the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly (and popularly) known as food stamps, by $39 billion over the next 10 years, a 5 percent cut relative to current law.

Hello, Legacy, can we talk about hungry children? Can we talk about malnourished families? Meanwhile fat-cat Congressmen like Phil Gingrey (R-GA)and Sean Duffy (R-WI) have the nerve to complain that they don't make enough money. Apparently they don't realize that a salary of $174,000 is many, many times the $15-20,000 a year from minimum wage that many struggle to live on in this country. The disconnect is sad and tragic and infuriating on so many levels.

This Congress will go down in history as the absolute most do-nothing, whiny, incompetent, heartless, and depressing of all time. And stupid.

Wednesday, September 11, 2013

Obama vs. Syria ~ Pressure and Diplomacy

 photo obama-syria.jpg

Complete Transcript of Syria Speech

From CBS News
President Obama on Tuesday night told the American public that the threat of a military strike should stay on the table while the U.S. and its allies take more time to pursue a diplomatic resolution with Assad.
. . . Mr. Obama said that, given Syria's recent offer to give up its chemical weapons, he's asked the leaders of Congress to postpone their vote on the use of force. The administration will work with its allies in the United Nations, he said, to put forward a resolution requiring Assad to give up the weapons. The international community will also give U.N. inspectors an opportunity to report their findings on the use of chemical weapons in Syria.
In the meantime, Mr. Obama said, he's ordered the U.S. military to "be in a position to respond" in case diplomatic efforts fail.




Monday, April 8, 2013

Lawrence Lessig ~ The People Can Save the Republic by Taking Back Power from "The Lesters"

 photo LessigTalk2.jpg

Lawrence Lessig, the founder of Creative Commons, gave a fantastic lecture in which he explained how our crazy system allows a miniscule minority - 0.05% of citizens - the "Lesters" - to fund elections, and how that corruption "at the root" of the Republic is blocking reform. The "Lesters" pick and choose candidates and issues through money influence, and only after they make a choice do the "People" get to vote in general elections. This is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind. Nor did they envision a country in which the public good is secondary to the future of politicians and their staffers to work as well-paid lobbyists for the Lesters. "This is a problem of incentives," says Lessig.

 photo LessigTalk4.jpg
 photo LessigTalk3-1.jpg

And while it seems impossible to overcome the corruption, we have to try because, as Lessig wryly notes, "Even we Liberals love this country." What is the answer? According to Lessig, it's the Obama-model of fundraising used successfully in two elections - take small contributions from many citizens instead of large lump sums from the one-percenters like the Koch Brothers or Sheldon Adelson (after all, Mitt failed in spite of his money).

TED is a Non-Profit devoted to Ideas Worth Spreading. It started out (in 1984) as a conference bringing together people from three worlds: Technology, Entertainment, Design.

"Lesterland" is available as an ebook download in various formats


Lessig on CNN:
. . . in my TED talk, I created Lesterland: Imagine a country like the United States, with just as many "Lesters" as the United States (about 150,000 out of a population of more than 300 million, or about 0.05%). And imagine those Lesters have a very special power: Each election cycle has two elections. In one, the general election, all citizens get to vote. In the other, the "Lester election," only "Lesters" get to vote.

But here's the catch: To be allowed to run in the general election, you must do extremely well in the Lester election. You don't necessarily need to win, but you must do extremely well.

We all get what Lesterland would be like. Sure, as the Supreme Court said in Citizens United, "the People" of Lesterland would have the "ultimate influence" over elected officials. Ultimate, because in the final election, the people get to vote. But "the People" only get to vote for the candidates who have made "the Lesters" happy. And no doubt, that fact will produce a subtle, understated, somewhat camouflaged bending to keep those Lesters happy.

Once you see Lesterland, and the corruption it creates you understand USA-land, and the corruption we suffer. For the United States is Lesterland.


Like Lesterland, the United States also has two elections. One a voting election, where citizens get to select the candidates who will ultimately govern. But the other is a money election, where the candidates who wish to run in the voting election raise the money they need to compete. As in Lesterland, the candidates don't necessarily need to win the money election. But they must do extremely well.

. . . Members of Congress will always be dependent upon their funders. But if we adopted a system to fund campaigns like the one proposed by Rep. John Sarbanes, D-Maryland, The Grassroots Democracy Act, then "the funders" would be "the People." If members raised the funds they needed from small contributions only, then many more of us would be the "relevant funders." And thus when members were responsive to their "funders," they would thus be responsive to that many more of us.

That, after all, was the Framers' original design. James Madison promised us a Congress "dependent upon the people alone." "Alone." We've got instead a Congress dependent upon the people and dependent upon the Lesters.

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

President Obama on the Sequester

Photobucket


The President today asked Congress to stop fooling around with the Sequester nonsense which would automatically make drastic cuts to many programs come Friday of this week. They can do better than still another man-made crisis during which the GOP does nothing. Legacy? What Legacy? History will remember this, fools.

From the White House ~ Full Remarks at Link
As I said in my State of the Union address last week, our top priority must be to do everything we can to grow the economy and create good, middle-class jobs. That’s our top priority. That's our North Star. That drives every decision we make. And it has to drive every decision that Congress and everybody in Washington makes over the next several years.

And that’s why it’s so troubling that just 10 days from now, Congress might allow a series of automatic, severe budget cuts to take place that will do the exact opposite. It won't help the economy, won't create jobs, will visit hardship on a whole lot of people.

. . . And by the way, the whole design of these arbitrary cuts was to make them so unattractive and unappealing that Democrats and Republicans would actually get together and find a good compromise of sensible cuts as well as closing tax loopholes and so forth. And so this was all designed to say we can't do these bad cuts; let’s do something smarter. That was the whole point of this so-called sequestration.

Unfortunately, Congress didn’t compromise. They haven't come together and done their jobs, and so as a consequence, we've got these automatic, brutal spending cuts that are poised to happen next Friday.

Now, if Congress allows this meat-cleaver approach to take place, it will jeopardize our military readiness; it will eviscerate job-creating investments in education and energy and medical research. It won’t consider whether we’re cutting some bloated program that has outlived its usefulness, or a vital service that Americans depend on every single day. It doesn’t make those distinctions.


Friday, January 25, 2013

Hillary Rocked Both Houses of Congress


Photobucket


I was so glad to see Hillary Clinton so fiesty with Congress after her recent illness. Of course the Tea Party didn't cut her any slack - she was grilled mercilessly by Congressmen and Senators over the Benghazi incident. Chris Matthews compared her to Gulliver among the Lilliputians, a giant among the little people, in Jonathan Swift's famous novel. Their questions were really ad hominem attacks used to boost their own pitiful careers with an ever-diminishing GOP. The Good Old Boys belched out Fox News talking points that bore little resemblance to reality. "Read the report," Hillary kept saying to them, because it was obvious they hadn't read anything, and were playing "gotcha" more than trying to get to the bottom of the murders of four government officials.

Poseurs like John McCain were especially egregious. He has been using Benghazi since before the election to help himself to another committee chairmanship (Harry Reid nixed that idea) and to wring out more air-time on Sunday morning talk shows. He pretended that Benghazi is somehow different from every other overseas attack, as if this time we should have known from the first moment everything that happened and why. McCain, who has more top secret security clearance than almost anyone, surely knows better. His performance was disingenuous faux-outrage. By contrast Hillary appeared dignified and full of common sense.

The joke of the day was when Senator Rand Paul said if he had been President, he would have fired Hillary for not reading every telegram from Benghazi. President? Delusions of grandeur much? Not to mention the fact that if George W. Bush had read all his telegrams and reports from, say, FBI agents here in the United States, then 911 need not have happened either. Right, Senator Paul? 3000 people died in that attack, plus thousands more over the course of two wars longer than any our military has ever engaged. But please, Senator Paul, proceed with your delusional life. We all know Hillary is much more likely to be President someday, not you.

More Quotes and Tweets from her Day on the Hill:
Snark Amendment: Hillary Kicks Butt on Benghazi


With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk last night who decided to kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator.



Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy



Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy







Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Obama Presser on Debt Ceiling: "Not a Deadbeat Nation"

Photobucket



So I want to be clear about this: The debt ceiling is not a question of authorizing more spending. Raising the debt ceiling does not authorize more spending. It simply allows the country to pay for spending that Congress has already committed to.

These are bills that have already been racked up, and we need to pay them. So, while I'm willing to compromise and find common ground over how to reduce our deficits, America cannot afford another debate with this Congress about whether or not they should pay the bills they've already racked up. If congressional Republicans refuse to pay America's bills on time, Social Security checks, and veterans benefits will be delayed.

We might not be able to pay our troops, or honor our contracts with small business owners. Food inspectors, air traffic controllers, specialist who track down loose nuclear materials wouldn't get their paychecks. Investors around the world will ask if the United States of America is in fact a safe bet. Markets could go haywire, interest rates would spike for anybody who borrows money. Every homeowner with a mortgage, every student with a college loan, every small business owner who wants to grow and hire.

It would be a self-inflicted wound on the economy. It would slow down our growth, might tip us into recession. And ironically it would probably increase our deficit. So to even entertain the idea of this happening, of the United States of America not paying its bills, is irresponsible. It's absurd. As the speaker said two years ago, it would be, and I'm quoting Speaker Boehner now, "a financial disaster, not only for us, but for the worldwide economy."

So we've got to pay our bills. And Republicans in Congress have two choices here. They can act responsibly, and pay America's bills, or they can act irresponsibly and put America through another economic crisis. But they will not collect a ransom in exchange for not crashing the American economy. The financial wellbeing of the American people is not leverage to be used. The full faith and credit of the United States of America is not a bargaining chip. And they better choose quickly, because time is running short.

The last time republicans in Congress even flirted with this idea, our AAA credit rating was downgraded for the first time in our history. Our businesses created the fewest jobs of any month in nearly the past three years, and ironically, the whole fiasco actually added to the deficit.

So it shouldn't be surprising, given all this talk, that the American people think that Washington is hurting rather than helping the country at the moment. They see their representatives consumed with partisan brinkmanship over paying our bills while they overwhelmingly want us to focus on growing the economy and creating more jobs.

So let's finish this debate. Let's give our businesses and the world the certainty that our economy and our reputation are still second to none. We pay our bills, we handle our business, and then we can move on because America has a lot to do.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Chuck Todd, NBC: Thank you, sir. As you know, Senate Democrats -- Harry Reid sent you a letter begging you, essentially, to take -- consider some sort of executive action on this debt ceiling issue. I know you've said you're not negotiating on it. Your administration has ruled out the various ideas that have been out there, the 14th Amendment, but just this morning, House -- one of the House Democratic leaders, Jim Clyburn, asked you to use the 14th Amendment and even said sometimes that's what it takes. He brought up the Emancipation Proclamation as saying they took executive action when Congress wouldn't act, and he compared the debt ceiling to that. So are you considering a Plan B? And if not, why not?

OBAMA: Well, Chuck, the issue here is whether or not America pays its bills. We are not a deadbeat nation. And so there's a very simple solution to this: Congress authorizes us to pay our bills. Now, if the House and the Senate want to give me the authority so that they don't have to take these tough votes, if they want to put the responsibility on me to raise the debt ceiling, I'm happy to take it. Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader in the Senate, had a proposal like that last year. And I'm happy to accept it.

But if they want to keep this responsibility, then they need to go ahead and get it done. And, you know, there are no magic tricks here. There are no loopholes. There are no, you know, easy outs. This is a matter of Congress authorizes spending. They order me to spend. They tell me, you need to fund our Defense Department at such-and-such a level, you need to send out Social Security checks, you need to make sure that you are paying to care for our veterans. They lay all this out for me, and -- because they have the spending power.

And so I am required by law to go ahead and pay these bills.

Separately, they also have to authorize a raising of the debt ceiling in order to make sure that those bills are paid. And so what Congress can't do is tell me to spend X and then say, "But we're not going to give you the authority to go ahead and pay the bills."

And I just want to repeat, because I think sometimes the American people understandably aren't following all -- all the debates here in Washington. Raising the debt ceiling does not authorize us to spend more. All it does is say, that America will pay its bills. And we are not a deadbeat nation.

And the consequences of us not paying our bills, as I outlined in my opening statement, would be disastrous. So, I understand the impulse to try to get around this in a simple way. But there's one way to get around this. There's one way to deal with it, and that is for Congress to authorize me to pay for those items of spending that they have already authorized. And the -- you know the -- the notion that Republicans in -- in the House, or maybe some Republicans in the Senate would suggest that in order for us to get our way on our spending priorities, that we would risk the full faith and credit of the United States, that I think is not what the founders intended.

That's now how I think most Americans think our democracy should work. You know they've got a point of view. Democrats in Congress have a point of view. They need to sit down, and -- and work out a compromise.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Major Garrett: Thank you, Mr. President. As you well know, sir, finding votes for the debt ceiling can sometimes be complicated. You yourselves as a member of the Senate voted against a debt ceiling increase. And in previous aspects of American history, President Reagan in 1985, President George Herbert Walker Bush in 1990, President Clinton in 1997 all signed deficit reduction deals that were contingent upon or in the context of raising the debt ceiling. You yourself four times have done that; three times those were related to deficit reduction or budget maneuvers.

What Chuck and I and I think many people are curious about is this new adamant desire on your part not to negotiate when that seems to conflict with the entire history in the modern era of American presidents in the debt ceiling and your own history on the debt ceiling. And doesn't that suggest that we are going to go into a default situation, because no one is talking to each other about how to resolve this?

OBAMA: Well, no, Major. I think if you look at the history, getting votes for the debt ceiling is always difficult and budgets in this town are always difficult. I went through this just last year. But what's different is we never saw a situation as we saw last year in which certain groups in Congress took such an absolutist position that we came within a few days of defaulting.

And, you know, the fact of the matter is, is that we have never seen the debt ceiling used in this fashion, where the notion was, you know what, we might default unless we get 100 percent of what we want. That hasn't happened.

Now, as I indicated before, I'm happy to have a conversation about how we reduce our deficits further in a sensible way, although one thing I want to point out is that the American people are also concerned about how we grow our economy, how we put people back to work, how we make sure that we finance our workers getting properly trained and our schools are giving our kids the education we deserve. There's a whole growth agenda which will reduce our deficits that's important, as well.

But what you've never seen is the notion that has been presented so far at least by the Republicans that deficit reduction will only count spending cuts, that we will raise the deficit - or the debt ceiling dollar for dollar on spending cuts. There are a whole set of rules that have been established that are impossible to meet without doing severe damage to the economy. And so what we're not going to do is put ourselves in a position where in order to pay for spending that we've already incurred, that our two options are; we're either going to profoundly hurt the economy, and hurt middle- class families, and hurt seniors, and hurt kids who are trying to go to college, or alternatively we're going to blow up the economy. We're not going to do that.

(OFF-MIKE)

REPORTER: (INAUDIBLE) three-month extension for this? What ever Congress sends you, you're OK with?

OBAMA: No, not whatever Congress sends me. They're going to have to send me something that's sensible. And we shouldn't be doing this...

(CROSSTALK)

OBAMA: ...then we should -- and we shouldn't be doing this on a one to three month time frame. Why would we do that? This is the United States of America, Major. Why -- what -- we can't manage our affairs in such a way that we pay our bills? And we provide some certainty in terms of how we pay our bills? Look I -- I don't - I don't think anybody would consider my position unreasonable here. The -- I have...

(CROSSTALK)

(OFF-MIKE) REPORTER: (INAUDIBLE) talk about this on a daily basis (INAUDIBLE.)

OBAMA: Major, the -- I am happy to have a conversation about how we reduce our deficits. I am not going to have a monthly, or every three months conversation about whether or not we pay our bills. Because that, in and of itself does severe damage. Even the threat of default hurts our economy. It's hurting our economy as we speak. We shouldn't be having that debate.

If we want to have a conversation about how to reduce our deficit, let's have that. We've been having that for the last two years. We just had an entire campaign about it. And by the way, the American people agreed with me, that we should reduce our deficits in a balanced way, that also takes into account the need for us to grow this economy, and put people back to work.

And despite that conversation, and despite the election results, the position that's been taken, on the part of some House Republicans, is that, "Nope, we gotta do it our way. And if we don't, we simply won't pay America's bills."

Well, you know, that -- that can't be -- that can't be a position that is sustainable over time. It's not one that's good for the economy now. It's certainly not going to be the kind of precedent that I want to establish, not just for my presidency, but for future presidents. Even if it was on the other side.

Democrats don't like voting for the debt ceiling when a Republican's president. And yet, you -- you -- but you never saw a situation in which Democrats suggested somehow that we would go ahead and default if we didn't get 100 percent of our way. That's just not how it's supposed to work.

Sunday, January 13, 2013

Alan Grayson is Back!

Photobucket

Nice to have Rep. Alan Grayson, R-Florida, back in Congress. He points out that the Republicans keeps dragging us towards these "cliff" situations, and it's all contrived by Congressional Republicans.

"This is completely unecessary. These are artificial crises manufactured by the Republican leadership in both the House and the Senate in order to bring about cuts in Social Security, cuts in Medicare, cuts in Medicaid the country doesn't want and would never even consider except for these crises that they create. We're not talking about an earthquake, we're not talking about Hurricane Sandy, we're not talking about any natural disaster.

It's a disaster created by the Republican Party's Agenda, which is highly unpopular, and wouldn't ever be considered except that they keep dragging the country again and again into these "cliff" situations.

On Gun Control Reform:

There's a fundamental difference here between the two parties, and it crosses NRA lines, so to speak. . . . Over and Over again whether you're talking about guns, talking about employment, healthcare or any other problem that's facing the country, what the other side wants to do is very clear: Nothing. I pointed out three years ago, they're healthcare plan is don't get sick, and if you do get sick, die quickly. And now we see the same thing is true with guns in the wake of a terrible national tragedy. A recurring national tragedy. Their answer is "Do Nothing."

They want to instill in us a kind of fatalism and nihilism that means we can't do anything to solve our problems.


Wednesday, January 9, 2013

Poll: Congress Lower Than Vermin

Photobucket

Public Policy Polling has a new poll out that describes American sentiment towards Congress.

Complete Results Here

It's not surprising, but people prefer almost any vile thing to Congress, including used car salesmen, replacement refs, and even Colonoscopies. Ouch. Did I mention cockroaches? Yep, better than Congress.

What things are considered lower than Congress? The Kardashians, John Edwards, and the Ebola Virus.

How much lower can they go? Just wait till the Debt Ceiling fight! Maybe by then PPP will add the NRA to their list - they are sinking fast also.

Head Lice 67 Congress 19

Brussel Sprouts 69 Congress 23

Replacement Refs 56 Congressmen 29

Colonoscopies 58 Congress 31

Root Canals 56 Congress 32

Used Car Salesmen 57 Congress 32

Traffic Jams 56 Congress 34

France 46 Congress 37

Genghis Khan 41 Congress 37

DC political pundits 37 Congress 34

Donald Trump 44 Congress 42

Cockroaches 45 Congress 43

What does Congress beat?
Lindsey Lohan (45/41), playground bullies (43/38), and telemarketers (45/35). And it posts wider margins over the Kardashians (49/36), John Edwards (45/29), lobbyists (48/30), Fidel Castro (54/32), Gonorrhea (53/28), Ebola (53/25), Communism (57/23), North Korea (61/26), and meth labs (60/21)

Sunday, January 6, 2013

Cowardly Lion - When John Boehner Cries

Photobucket

It's amazing how many people discuss John Boehner's tears on the internet. Love him or hate him, his crying jags are definitely fascinating. He even cried on the first day of Congress, blowing his nose into a very large handkerchief that he probably buys in bulk.

Photobucket



And I'm not judging him, since I've been known to cry over episodes of The Waltons, or children's birthday parties, or even on the Fourth of July. Certain movies are guaranteed to make me tear up - just put in Tender Mercies or Out of Africa and there I go again. Play certain songs and I get absolutely weepy.

I always wonder if Boehner gets emotional at times because he feels privileged to be there, considering he had a rather tough childhood. Or perhaps he is just overwhelmed with the responsibility and the byzantine politics, and can't control himself. I think it's a little of both, but who knows? Some say he just drinks too much, but I don't hold that against him either.

What it tells me is that in spite of his bluster and his confused stance on many issues, somewhere in there is a human being with a heart. I can't imagine Paul Ryan or Eric Cantor EVER crying in public, or really crying at all - they are cold fish compared to Boehner.

And then there are the rightwing pundits such as Sean Hannity who thinks Boehner should snap out of it:
Crying in public - I can't take it! Somebody needs to say this: I don't get the crying in public all the time. And I like John Boehner but this is ridiculous. If anything we ought to be crying because America's on the brink of bankruptcy. That's something to cry about.

Does it really surprise anyone that a scumbag like Hannity would be puzzled by an emotional display?

And maybe that's why Boehner cries so much: he is trapped in the craziest party in history with a bunch of sociopaths who lack basic empathy and show him no respect. David Axelrod called the Tea Party Caucus "John Boehner's Unruly Children," and I think that's the perfect characterization. A Speaker of the House is supposed to be a figurehead and a mentor to the others in his or her party. The trouble is, the GOP members of the House not only don't love him - they don't even like him.

And maybe that's why President Obama keeps trying to deal with him, since the Democrats are often quick to dismiss him as a failed President, too, even when he gets Congress to vote for his bills with good things for everyone. Nothing is ever enough for extremists in either party, so I think that's their real common ground.

But Boehner is no Obama, and the Speakership is probably the only power he will ever have. I'm sure that sometimes Boehner wishes he could run down the hall and jump out the window like the Cowardly Lion, but he tries to pull himself together and blunders on, which seems pretty brave.

I wouldn't trade places with him for all the money in the world.



GOP ~ Meet the New Party Same as the Old Party

Photobucket


What did the GOP learn from their election failures in 2012? Are they more sensitive now to the will of the People in taking care of everyone, especially the poor and the unwell? Do they understand that Americans are rejecting extremism, whether religious or militant? Will they now recognize that the era of rich white men is over, and the United States must embrace diversity? Are they ready to turn over a new leaf in 2013 and make the world a better place?

In a word ~ No.

In all the hubbub over the Fiscal Cliff, the 112th Congress failed to do anything about the Violence Against Women Act which has been in place for 18 years.

GOP Kills Violence Against Women Act

Why? Because Democrats wanted to add language protecting lesbians, Native American women, and illegal immigrants. Yeah - even though all those women were ostensibly protected by the law anyway, the GOP threw out the entire law rather than compromise on a few sentences that would have clarified some legal problems for minority women and those from other countries afraid to call 911 in case they might be deported. It can be introduced again, and surely will, but this is a great example of the fact that the GOP has not dropped the "War on Women" and indeed, they seem to be doubling down.

Another example: The very first bill proposed in the 113th Congress came from none other than wingnut extraordinaire Michele Bachmann, R-Minnesota. And what was her "fresh start" idea for a bill?

Repeal Obamacare. Yeah. That. Wow.

Bachmann Wants Congress to Repeal Entirety of Obamacare

And there were plenty of other back-sliding proposals and actions the national Tea Party Republicans and their friends at the state level have made just in the past week. The New GOP is just like the old GOP, only possibly more deluded (if that's even possible).

Even after Chris Christie shamed them, 67 Republicans - many from Tornado or Hurricane states - Voted Against partial Relief for Sandy Victims

John Cornyn, R-Texas, Threatens U.S. with Government Shutdown (Again) if Obama Doesn't Cave on Debt Ceiling Talks

Grover Norquist Pretends that Congress Didn't Raise Taxes on the Wealthy - Andrea Mitchell calls him "Alice in Wonderland"

Indiana Bill introduced to make The Lord's Prayer Mandatory in Schools

Steve King, R-IA Wants to End Birthright Citizenship for Children of Illegal Immigrants born in the U.S. (no more Obamas with immigrant fathers, I guess)

Louie Gohmert,R-Genious of Texas, expresses the fear that fears Gun restrictions would ban tools such as hammers, since those can be used as weapons . . . oh never mind

Ohio Gun Owners Group Starts Armed Teacher Training Program in spite of public outcry against more guns in schools



Friday, January 4, 2013

Historic 113th Congress Convenes


Photobucket

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi with
Democratic Women of the House

What a day of firsts for our country! And it gives everyone a feeling of optimism that this Congress might be different because it is more diverse, in spite of the obstinate Tea Partiers.

Women, Women Everywhere!



Photobucket
20 Women of the Senate

Photobucket
Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts is Sworn In

DebFisher of Nebraska
Deb Fisher ~ First Woman Senator EVER from Nebraska

Photobucket
New Hampshire's All Women Delegation

Photobucket

PacificIslanders

Photobucket

Wednesday, January 2, 2013

Obama Speaks After Congress Votes on Fiscal Cliff

Photobucket

At the eleventh hour, with yet another display of "brinksmanship," and almost 24 hours after the U.S. technically went over the Fiscal Cliff which raised taxes on all Americans, the House GOP finally got themselves together, and with a special appeal to the Dems by Joe Biden, Congress passed a compromise that kept tax rates low for 98% of Americans, saved unemployment benefits, and raised taxes permanently on the top 2%.

What did Obama give away? Not much - he let them raise the "middle-class" tax cut-off to $400,000 (or #450,000 for married couples). That will limit revenue for sure, but the top 2% still have to go back to Clinton-Era tax levels of 39.6%, which the Tea Party vowed wouldn't happen. So this is a win for the President and the country, even though many purists on the Left would say "Obama Caved." I disagree - he compromised to get something done and it worked. That's the way it works, folks, whether you like it or not. Stonewalling will never get us anywhere - the Tea Party proves that!

More Glass-Half-Full or Half-Empty quotes:
Snark Amendment: Fiscal Cliff Compromise Makes Both Sides Unhappy

From Talking Points Memo
The final vote was 257-167. The bill passed thanks to an overwhelming display of Democratic support — 172 Dems voted for the bill, while only 16 opposed. By contrast, only 85 Republicans voted in support of the bill, compared to the 151 — including House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) — who voted against.

This was not an easily foretold outcome. Though the legislation was the product of White House negotiations with the Senate’s top Republican, and though it passed the upper chamber overwhelmingly in the wee hours of New Year’s Day, House Republicans nearly submarined the bill and sent the country down an uncertain road toward economic contraction.

. . . They wanted cuts to federal spending. And, with a wink from Cantor, they were nearly prepared to sink the bill directly, or return it to the Senate amended and guarantee its demise.
In the end, a self-preservation instinct took over. Leaders suffocated the rebellion, and decided to place the bill on the floor unchanged, at the risk of alienating the majority of rank-and-file Republicans.






Complete Transcript of Obama's Comments:

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
_________________________________________________________________

For Immediate Release January 1, 2013

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

11:20 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Happy New Year, everybody.

AUDIENCE: Happy New Year, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: A central promise of my campaign for President was to change the tax code that was too skewed towards the wealthy at the expense of working middle-class Americans. Tonight we've done that. Thanks to the votes of Democrats and Republicans in Congress, I will sign a law that raises taxes on the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans while preventing a middle-class tax hike that could have sent the economy back into recession and obviously had a severe impact on families all across America.

I want to thank all the leaders of the House and Senate. In particular, I want to thank the work that was done by my extraordinary Vice President Joe Biden, as well as Leader Harry Reid, Speaker Boehner, Nancy Pelosi, and Mitch McConnell. Everybody worked very hard on this and I appreciate it. And, Joe, once again, I want to thank you for your great work.

Under this law, more than 98 percent of Americans and 97 percent of small businesses will not see their income taxes go up. Millions of families will continue to receive tax credits to help raise their kids and send them to college. Companies will continue to receive tax credits for the research that they do, the investments they make, and the clean energy jobs that they create. And 2 million Americans who are out of work but out there looking, pounding the pavement every day, are going to continue to receive unemployment benefits as long as they're actively looking for a job.

But I think we all recognize this law is just one step in the broader effort to strengthen our economy and broaden opportunity for everybody. The fact is the deficit is still too high, and we're still investing too little in the things that we need for the economy to grow as fast as it should.

And that's why Speaker Boehner and I originally tried to negotiate a larger agreement that would put this country on a path to paying down its debt while also putting Americans back to work rebuilding our roads and bridges, and providing investments in areas like education and job training. Unfortunately, there just wasn't enough support or time for that kind of large agreement in a lame duck session of Congress. And that failure comes with a cost, as the messy nature of the process over the past several weeks has made business more uncertain and consumers less confident.

But we are continuing to chip away at this problem, step by step. Last year I signed into law $1.7 trillion in deficit reduction. Tonight's agreement further reduces the deficit by raising $620 billion in revenue from the wealthiest households in America. And there will be more deficit reduction as Congress decides what to do about the automatic spending cuts that we have now delayed for two months.

I want to make this point: As I've demonstrated throughout the past several weeks, I am very open to compromise. I agree with Democrats and Republicans that the aging population and the rising cost of health care makes Medicare the biggest contributor to our deficit. I believe we've got to find ways to reform that program without hurting seniors who count on it to survive. And I believe that there's further unnecessary spending in government that we can eliminate.

But we can't simply cut our way to prosperity. Cutting spending has to go hand-in-hand with further reforms to our tax code so that the wealthiest corporations and individuals can't take advantage of loopholes and deductions that aren't available to most Americans. And we can't keep cutting things like basic research and new technology and still expect to succeed in a 21st century economy. So we're going to have to continue to move forward in deficit reduction, but we have to do it in a balanced way, making sure that we are growing even as we get a handle on our spending.

Now, one last point I want to make -- while I will negotiate over many things, I will not have another debate with this Congress over whether or not they should pay the bills that they've already racked up through the laws that they passed. Let me repeat: We can't not pay bills that we've already incurred. If Congress refuses to give the United States government the ability to pay these bills on time, the consequences for the entire global economy would be catastrophic -- far worse than the impact of a fiscal cliff.

People will remember, back in 2011, the last time this course of action was threatened, our entire recovery was put at risk. Consumer confidence plunged. Business investment plunged. Growth dropped. We can't go down that path again.

And today's agreement enshrines, I think, a principle into law that will remain in place as long as I am President: The deficit needs to be reduced in a way that's balanced. Everyone pays their fair share. Everyone does their part. That's how our economy works best. That's how we grow.

The sum total of all the budget agreements we've reached so far proves that there is a path forward, that it is possible if we focus not on our politics but on what's right for the country. And the one thing that I think, hopefully, in the New Year we'll focus on is seeing if we can put a package like this together with a little bit less drama, a little less brinksmanship, not scare the heck out of folks quite as much.

We can come together as Democrats and Republicans to cut spending and raise revenue in a way that reduces our deficit, protects our middle class, provides ladders into the middle class for everybody who's willing to work hard. We can find a way to afford the investments that we need to grow and compete. We can settle this debate, or at the very least, not allow it to be so all-consuming all the time that it stops us from meeting a host of other challenges that we face -- creating jobs, boosting incomes, fixing our infrastructure, fixing our immigration system, protecting our planet from the harmful effects of climate change, boosting domestic energy production, protecting our kids from the horrors of gun violence.

It's not just possible to do these things; it's an obligation to ourselves and to future generations. And I look forward to working with every single member of Congress to meet this obligation in the New Year.

And I hope that everybody now gets at least a day off, I guess, or a few days off, so that people can refresh themselves, because we're going to have a lot of work to do in 2013.

Thanks, everybody. Happy New Year.

END 11:28 P.M. EST

Sunday, December 30, 2012

President Obama: Don't Blame "Both Sides" for Fiscal Cliff

Photobucket
source: RawStory

Here's the President on Meet the Press today schooling David Gregory on why the press needs to give up the false equivalency meme. And I really loved that Obama used the phrase "country first" to describe his plans, since that was the McCain/Palin slogan in 2008. Ha.

The only thing I would caution against, David, is I think this notion of, "Well, both sides are just kind of unwilling to cooperate." And that's just not true. I mean if you look at the facts, what you have is a situation here where the Democratic Party, warts and all, and certainly me, warts and all, have consistently done our best to try to put country first.

And to try to work with everybody involved to make sure that we've got an economy [that] grows. Make sure that it works for everybody. Make sure that we're keeping the country safe. And does the Democratic Party still have some knee-jerk ideological positions and are there some folks in the Democratic Party who sometimes aren't reasonable? Of course. That's true of every political party.

But generally if you look at how I've tried to govern over the last four years and how I'll continue to try to govern, I'm not driven by some ideological agenda. I am a pretty practical guy. And I just want to make sure that things work. And one of the nice things about never having another election again, I will never campaign again, is I think you can rest assured that all I care about is making sure that I leave behind an America that is stronger, more prosperous, more stable, more secure than it was when I came into office.

More of the Transcript Here on PolicyMic

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Sunday, December 23, 2012

Enough! Demand a Plan

Photobucket

Fantastic Public Service Announcements for Demand a Plan against Gun Violence. These gave me chills - I just pray it doesn't happen again before something can be done.

Many more Videos Here on YouTube






Thursday, December 20, 2012

Changing the Gun Culture

Photobucket

President Obama spoke today about creating a task force headed by Joe Biden to figure out ways to stop gun violence.


Of course the President has the best of intentions, but with Congress out of session for the holidays, and the President's Inauguration early next year, the timeline for working out a plan will take until at least the end of January. Many are worried that it will take too long to get legislation going, or that the will of the people will dry up at the grassroots level, allowing the NRA to usurp the message after their press conference on Friday of this week.

But I don't think so - not this time. Things are happening all over the country that are fundamentally different in a way we've never seen before and people are taking action - Check it out:


New Jersey Has Record-Setting Gun Buyback
"A lot of people said they don't want the guns around the house now," said state Attorney General Jeffrey Chiesa as he announced the result of the program held Friday and Saturday at two Camden churches. The state brought in 1,137 guns, surpassing the previous record of 700 weapons from a 2009 Essex County event. Among them were scores of rifles, shotguns and pistols, sawed-off shotguns, a century-old antique weapon, a rifle used for hunting elephants and five fully automatic weapons. Some 90 percent were in working condition. Many were illegal weapons under state laws; some were so-called community guns stashed around neighborhood. Nearly all are to be destroyed.
. . . The state had $110,000 in cash to give to those who turned in guns, along with $6,000 in gift cards left over from a previous program.
"At 2 o'clock," he said, "we were out of money."



From Gawker:
Stephen Barton, one of the 58 movie-goers injured during the mass shooting in Aurora that claimed the lives of 12 people, appears in a new non-partisan PSA asking voters to demand a plan from both President Obama and his GOP rival Mitt Romney to curb gun violence.
"I was lucky," Barton, who was struck by 25 shotgun pellets, says as he sits inside an empty movie theater. "In the next four years, 48,000 Americans won't be so lucky because they'll be murdered with guns in the next president's term — enough to fill over 200 theaters."
The push for a "plan" is backed by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a coalition of 725 mayors called who have set up an online petition that has received over 250,000 signatures to date.



Danbury, CT, Gun Show Cancelled
The Danbury Gun & Knife Show scheduled for Jan. 5-6 has been canceled. The show’s promoter, Big Al’s Silver Bullet Productions, announced the cancellation on its website, as did Mayor Mark Boughton on Twitter.
The show was to include ”Premium Knives, Firearms, Gun Accessories, Ammo, Tactical Clothing, Hard-to-Find Items, Tactical Gear and more!”
A call to Big Al’s was picked up Tuesday afternoon by a person who responded, “No comment,” when asked why the gun show was canceled.

Florida Pawn Shop Owner Stops Selling Guns
“Dropped her (his daughter) off yesterday, saw the children, came to work prepared to display our firearms, and the first one I display is a Bushmaster AR-15," James said. "I said to myself, 'that’s it; I just can’t hang this on my wall.' ”
James said he is still a firm believer in the Second Amamendment. He’ll continue to carry a firearm, and he will have them in his home, but he can no longer fathom the possibility of a gun he sells end up in the wrong hands.
“It would have been devastating," he said. "I think of that scenario every day."
James and his daughter have tacked up green and white ribbons in place of the guns to honor the victims of the Connecticut shooting.
James said he’s not sure what he’s going to do with all of the guns, and since gun sales were such a large part of his business, he will have to make some changes in order to keep the store open.

Private Equity Firm Cerberus Sells Bushmaster Gun Stake
Calling the deadly assault "tragic and devastating," private equity firm Cerberus Capital Management said Tuesday that it will sell its 95% stake in Freedom Group Inc., which makes the Bushmaster AR-15 rifle that police said was used in the attack.
The massacre was a "watershed event that has raised the national debate on gun control to an unprecedented level," Cerberus said.
. . . The California State Teachers' Retirement System said Monday that it would review its holdings in Cerberus in early January because of its link with Bushmaster. Through its investment in Cerberus, CalSTRS owns 2.4% of Freedom Group.

Dick's Sporting Goods Pulls Guns from Shelves
Dick’s Sporting Goods Inc., the largest U.S. sporting-goods chain, suspended sales of modern sporting rifles nationwide in the wake of the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, as the massacre’s victims are mourned.
Sales of all guns have been stopped at its store closest to the shooting, the Coraopolis, Pennsylvania-based company said today in an e-mailed statement.
. . . “We are extremely saddened by the unspeakable tragedy that occurred last week,” the company said in the statement. Dick’s is removing the guns “out of respect for the victims and their families.”

Coach Pat Kelsey Demands Action on Guns
The last thing I want to say is I'm really, really lucky, because I'm going to get on an eight-hour bus ride, and I'm going to arrive in Rock Hill, South Carolina, and I'm going to walk into my house, and I'm going to walk upstairs, and I'm going to walk into two pink rooms with a 5-year-old and a 4-year-old laying in that pink room, with a bunch of teddy bears laying in that room," he said, concluding his remarks in the wake of a 65-55 loss at No. 7 Ohio State.
"And I'm going to give them the biggest hug and the biggest kiss I've ever given them. And there's 20 families in Newtown, Conn., that are walking into a pink room with a bunch of teddy bears with nobody laying in those beds. And it's tragic."


. . . "I know this microphone's powerful right now, because we're playing the (seventh)-best team in the country," he said. "I'm not going to have a microphone like this the rest of the year, maybe the rest of my life."
"I don't know what needs to be done. I'm not smart enough to know what needs to be done, OK?" he said. "I know this country's got issues. Is it a gun issue? Is it a mental illness issue? Or is it a society that has lost the fact, the understanding, that decent human values are important?"
Kelsey called on political leaders to get past petty differences and accomplish something.
"I didn't vote for President Obama. But you know what? He's my president now. He's my leader. I need him to step up," he said. "Mr. (John) Boehner, the Speaker of the House ... OK, he needs to step up."
"Parents, teachers, rabbis, priests, coaches — everybody needs to step up. This has to be a time for change," he said. "And I'm going to be an agent of change with the 13 young men I get to coach every day and the two little girls that I get to raise. But hopefully things start changing, because it's really, really disappointing."
His voice rising, and with his eyes welling, he finished by saying, "I'm proud to grow up American. I'm proud to say I'm part of the greatest country ever. And that's got to stay that way. And it'll stay that way if we change.
"But we've got to change."

Tuesday, December 18, 2012

What Other Countries Did to Stop Gun Violence

Photobucket


It makes sense for President Obama to study the models of other countries that have dealt with gun violence and stamped it out of their society.  It should give us all hope that there are places in the world where politicians have said "enough" and stood up quickly to the right wing gun lobbyists - in Australia it only took them 12 Days to get going!!!  It's got to happen here in the U.S. because the alternative is chaos and anarchy - and more death. It has to happen now - there's no turning back.


The Finland Approach
Finland's established culture of gun ownership (1.5 million firearms in a country of 5 million people) was called into question after two horrific shooting incidents at schools that took place within a year of each other.
On Nov. 7, 2007, a teenager in Tuusula killed eight people before killing himself at Jokela High School. Just a year later, on Sept. 23, a gunman shot 10 people on the campus of Kauhajoki city's School of Hospitality before turning the gun on himself, according to CNN.
In the wake of the shootings, Finland raised the minimum age for firearm licenses from 15 to 20 for short weapons and to 18 for hunting guns, according to Agence France Presse.
"No one in a country like Finland needs to have a gun at home," said Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja in August 2011, following the rampage by Anders Behring Breivik, in neighboring Norway.

NYT: Australia, Scotland, and Japan
Australia is an excellent example. In 1996, a “pathetic social misfit,” as a judge described the lone gunman, killed 35 people with a spray of bullets from semiautomatic weapons. Within weeks, the Australian government was working on gun reform laws that banned assault weapons and shotguns, tightened licensing and financed gun amnesty and buyback programs.

At the time, the prime minister, John Howard, said, “We do not want the American disease imported into Australia.” The laws have worked. The American Journal of Law and Economics reported in 2010 that firearm homicides in Australia dropped 59 percent between 1995 and 2006. In the 18 years before the 1996 laws, there were 13 gun massacres resulting in 102 deaths, according to Harvard researchers, with none in that category since.

Similarly, after 16 children and their teacher were killed by a gunman in Dunblane, Scotland, in 1996, the British government banned all private ownership of automatic weapons and virtually all handguns. Those changes gave Britain some of the toughest gun control laws in the developed world on top of already strict rules. Hours of exhaustive paperwork are required if anyone wants to own even a shotgun or rifle for hunting. The result has been a decline in murders involving firearms.

. . . In Japan, which has very strict laws, only 11 people killed with guns in 2008, compared with 12,000 deaths by firearms that year in the United States — a huge disparity even accounting for the difference in population.

Slate: The Australian Model after 1996 shooting
At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia. The country’s new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a “genuine reason” for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. (Self-defense did not count.) In the wake of the tragedy, polls showed public support for these measures at upwards of 90 percent.
What happened next has been the subject of several academic studies. Violent crime and gun-related deaths did not come to an end in Australia, of course. But as the Washington Post’s Wonkblog pointed out in August, homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper: 65 percent. Studies found a close correlation between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks. Robberies involving a firearm also dropped significantly.